Discussions about Ethics in the Accounting Classroom:
Student Assumptions and Faculty Paradigms1
The following essay was based on extensive classroom observation in graduate accounting classrooms
and was written to enable faculty to better understand the needs and assumptions of their students with
regard to the link between ethics and accounting, as well as to better recognize their own impacts on
student learning and attitudes.
However, the assumptions, expectations and intentions of students and faculty described herein are just
as relevant for managers who wish to find effective ways to frame and express their values-based
responses to frequently heard workplace rationalizations for less than ethical accounting practices.
Reframing discussions of accounting practice around the question of “purpose” is just as critical (if not
more so) in the workplace as in the classroom. The section on “Teaching Pitfalls” describes frameworks
and attitudes experienced just as often in the workplace as in the classroom. And the section on “Red
Flags” just as easily applies to warning signs in the manager’s organizational experience as it does to
the classroom experience. Finally, the suggestions for educators enumerated in the “Conclusion” are
also useful for managers who want to guide and mentor their employees.
Typically when educators set out to introduce ethical issues into existing courses in the management
curriculum, they use the “add and stir’ approach. First, they try to identify ethical issues that are
especially prevalent in the particular field — say accounting; then they try to find appropriate places
within the syllabus to raise these issues for discussion. In accounting, this often translates into case
discussions about the temptations of fraudulent financial reporting or more subtly, all the ways in which
earnings can be massaged, smoothed, enhanced and hurried by managers at various levels within a firm.
While this strategy may succeed in setting some less suspicious students on their guard about
questionable practices they might encounter, it often does little in the way of arming students with a
clear sense of how to resist such temptations or even whether or not it makes sense to try. Faculty
sometimes nervously worry that they may actually be providing recipes for “cooking the books” rather
than proscriptions against such practices.
1
An earlier version of this note was developed while the author was a Senior Research Fellow at Harvard Business School.
This material is part of the Giving Voice to Values curriculum collection (www.GivingVoiceToValues.org).
The Aspen Institute was founding partner, along with the Yale School of Management, and incubator for Giving Voice to Values (GVV).
Now Funded by Babson College.
Do not alter or distribute without permission. © Mary C. Gentile, 2010
1
Actual classroom discussions of typical financial reporting and managerial accounting case studies
reveal a set of student needs and assumptions, as well as a set of conceptual paradigms implicit in the
curriculum design that inhibit effective ethical discussion from surfacing and often render it unsatisfying
when it does manage to erupt. The following paper, based on extensive MBA classroom observations,
will share some actual classroom exchanges, identify the student assumptions and the conceptual
paradigms that stifle the integration of ethical analysis into the discussion, and provide some suggestions
on how these barriers might be overcome.
Student Expectations: Truth, Purpose, Mastery
Students approach a course on Financial Reporting and Managerial Accounting (FRMA) with certain
baggage. Unfortunately some students come in with the complete Samsonite European Tour Set, while
others carry nothing but a backpack. Those students with no background in the field are keenly aware of
its specialized language and its standards and rules. They have a sense of an exclusive and specialized
realm to which they are seeking entry. Their lack of familiarity encourages the belief that insiders have
access to business insight and control which they also can have if they are smart enough and if they
learn the right rules. They are seeking truth and a sense of mastery.
On the other hand, those students who have prior experience in the field come to the course with the
confidence born of familiarity, but they also know the limits of this special knowledge. They may have
seen accounting used as a tool for a variety of ends. For some, this experience leads to an acceptance
that the rules of accounting are just like the rules of any other “game;2” the trick is to make them work
for you. Others still hope that the field’s standards can be perfected so as to serve as guidance and even
an enforcer. These students don’t experience the anxiety and blind faith of the outsider. Rather they are
insiders, some of whom are seeking a sense of purpose for their expertise and others who have already
defined that purpose, but rather narrowly.
Differing expectations exist not only between different groups of students, but also within the same
student. Students bring conflicting assumptions to the study of accounting. For example, they bring a
simultaneous belief and disbelief in “the numbers:” on the one hand, they see managers (i.e.,
themselves) as governed by the rules of accounting and GAAP, unable to act without a version of the
numbers to back them up; on the other hand, they see themselves as autonomous agents who manipulate
the tools of accounting to their own ends. This contradiction is succinctly summed up in the often-heard
query: “Can you make the numbers work?” Implicit in this question is the assumption that the numbers
are manipulable, as well as the assumption that they are the ultimate arbiter. The students’ desire for
control over their experience causes them to want to believe that they can ‘make the numbers work.”
However, their feelings of powerlessness in the face of a highly technical, exclusive realm and their
discomfort in the face of organizational pressures to “play the game,” cause them to prefer to abdicate
2
Use of the “game” metaphor for accounting or any other business activity can be dangerous. There are ways in which
business activities and games are similar but there are very important ways in which they are different. For example, it can be
useful to ask “what is the time frame for the activity?”: an hour’s game is very different from an ongoing business activity.
Similarly, asking “what is at stake?” can emphasize the distinctions between a business and a game of entertainment.
Additional important questions that can emphasize the limits of the “game” metaphor include: What are the goals? Do all the
participants know the rules? Is participation in the activity freely chosen? Are third parties (people not directly involved in
the activity) affected?
This material is part of the Giving Voice to Values curriculum collection (www.GivingVoiceToValues.org).
The Aspen Institute was founding partner, along with the Yale School of Management, and incubator for Giving Voice to Values (GVV).
Now Funded by Babson College.
Do not alter or distribute without permission. © Mary C. Gentile, 2010
2
their sense of responsibility for their actions to an external rule-giver: ‘It must be OK because GAAP
allows it.”
It is this confusion/ambivalence over the degree of control or power the manager actually possesses, and
the nature of that control, which is at the heart of the pedagogical challenges faced in accounting ethics
discussions. The students accept that managers do have power, but only within a bounded realm of
action, the limits of which have been externally given. This complex belief system allows them to feel
simultaneously empowered to “make the game work for them and their companies,” as well as feeling
excused from ultimate responsibility, since they believe the rules so limit their options and serve as
surrogate for a broader accountability.
Student Expectations and Faculty Assumptions
Now if educators take a look at the student needs or expectations that have been identified above, and
match them up with certain faculty assumptions about the proper conceptual approach to FRMA, they
can pinpoint the obstacles to accounting ethics discussions. First of all, as noted above, students
experience an expectation or need for truth, for the sense that accounting knowledge will enable them to
see and understand the actual state of a firm’s operations. They want clarity and the ability to evaluate
information as true or false.
Faculty, on the other hand, approach the FRMA course with the expectation, indeed the intention, to
undermine the student’s too simple belief in the validity of the numbers. Cases are designed to illustrate
the latitude of managerial discretion, as well as the limitations of any reporting system in capturing the
complex and varied “reality” of a particular business enterprise. For example, in introductory
discussions of inventory reporting, students explore the different advantages and disadvantages of LIFO
and FIFO, from perspectives internal and external to the firm. Later in the course, an examination of
different methods of product cost accounting reveals that each method captures different information but
no system is completely “true.”
Faculty intend to initiate students into the complexities of financial reporting and to communicate the
degree to which students have control or power over the reality they choose to construct and convey,
both within and outside of the firm. As Gareth Morgan argues:
Accountants often see themselves as engaged in an objective, value-free, technical enterprise,
representing reality “as is”. But in fact, they are subjective “constructors of reality”: presenting and
representing the situations in limited and one-sided ways....By appreciating and exploring this
dimension of the accounting process, accountants have a means of developing a new epistemology
of accounting that will emphasize the interpretive as opposed to the supposedly ‘objective” aspects
of the discipline, perhaps in a way that will help broaden and deepen the accountants’ contributions
to economic and social life (Morgan, 1988).
Ironically, in an effort to be more “truthful” with their students about the nature of accounting, faculty
may actually undermine the student’s expectation of truth from the tools of the discipline. The message
that students take away from the class discussion deconstruction of “reality,” as presented in a particular
set of financial reports, is that “truth” does not exist ... or at least it is not what accounting is about. As
This material is part of the Giving Voice to Values curriculum collection (www.GivingVoiceToValues.org).
The Aspen Institute was founding partner, along with the Yale School of Management, and incubator for Giving Voice to Values (GVV).
Now Funded by Babson College.
Do not alter or distribute without permission. © Mary C. Gentile, 2010
3
several students put it at different times during an FRMA course: “Accounting is just a way to make
things look good.” No matter that faculty may actually intend to convey that truth is complex; that it is a
matter of balance and negotiation between different perspectives; and that although a single, completely
accurate reporting of a firm’s activity may never be achieved, it is still worthwhile and necessary to
strive to approach it.
The costs of this student misunderstanding are high. In his book, The Corning Crisis in Accounting,
Belkaoui comments on fraudulent financial reporting as follows:
[Fraudulent financial reporting] results from a number of documented dysfunctional behaviors:
smoothing, biasing, focusing, gaming, filtering and illegal acts. Such behaviors generally occur
when managers have a low belief both in the analyzability of information and in the measurability
and verifiability of data (Belkaoui, 1989). (Emphasis added)
That belief in the verifiability of data begins to be undermined when students see the complexity of
financial reporting as a reason to abandon altogether the struggle for responsible accounting practices.
In addition to the students’ desire for truth, they require a sense of purpose for their accounting
expertise. Some hope to find this in an external source: the standards of GAAP and FASB. Faculty,
however, hold it as their responsibility to clarify the limitations of these guidelines: they are sometimes
too general; they are an evolving and often reactive framework; and they, too, represent a limited
perspective. Given these limitations, accounting standards are a poor surrogate for purpose: they tend to
be more a set of “thou shalt not’s” than a guide for managerial meaning.
Other students look inward for a sense of purpose for their accounting knowledge and find it in a
commitment to individual career goals. Faculty may inadvertently reinforce this rather narrow definition
of purpose by omitting the assertion of a broader conception of managerial purpose on the one hand, and
by accepting students’ assumption of case protagonists’ narrowly personal motivations, often served by
unethical behavior, on the other.
Without a belief that some form of truth is a possible goal, and without a sense of broader purpose than
one’s personal career success, students are left with the drive for technical mastery as the motivating
force in FRMA. Placing this drive for mastery within the context of students’ confusion/ambivalence
about the degree of control or power the manager actually possesses over “the numbers,” it is no wonder
that ethical imperatives seem misguided, beyond the manager’s ability, or both. For example, ethicsrelated case studies in FRMA often deal with some aspect of truthful disclosure (i.e., “Harnischfeger
Corporation,” “R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company,” “Scovill Inc.: Nutone Housing Group.” -- See
Appendix for case summaries). If students have come to accept that the accounting “truth” is impossible
to define — if it exists at all — how can these cases generate moral commitment, much less a practical
action plan for pursuing it? And if students imagine no sense of purpose beyond individual career
success, is it any wonder that their sense of mastery is defined without reference to ethics — sometimes
in fact, in contradiction to it?
This material is part of the Giving Voice to Values curriculum collection (www.GivingVoiceToValues.org).
The Aspen Institute was founding partner, along with the Yale School of Management, and incubator for Giving Voice to Values (GVV).
Now Funded by Babson College.
Do not alter or distribute without permission. © Mary C. Gentile, 2010
4
The Assumption of Unethical Behavior
So faculty and students appear to possess a reciprocally reinforcing set of assumptions which undermine
an ethical perspective toward case material. The assumption of unethical behavior on the part of
managers is particularly problematic in the classroom (Tyson, 1990) and it surfaces frequently. For
example:
 In a class discussion of a typical corporate annual report, students commented that they found the
report’s emphasis on “corporate citizenship” surprising;
 In classes on inventory reporting, students routinely talked about managers “playing hide and seek
with the IRS” or using accounting ”to just make themselves look good on paper;”
 In a discussion of depreciation schedules at two different airlines, a student commented that “I’d like
to think that the airline extended plane life in their depreciation in order to be more accurate, but it
made their earnings go up;”
 In a discussion of accounting for leased assets, the instructor asked: “Are we arguing for this method
of accounting because it looks good and smoothes our earnings, or because it most closely reflects
the underlying economics of the leasing situation?” The students responded: “It depends on who you
are” and “Sometimes we may want things to look bad for the purpose of tax breaks.”
With no alternative perspective, repeated comments like these serve to construct a context inhospitable
to ethical considerations. An assumption of unethical managerial behavior deprives students of positive
managerial models; it presupposes that the world of professional management — the world students
have targeted — is a realm where individuals thrive, or at least cope, by unscrupulous means; and it
hinders ethical discussion by casting it as unrealistic and naive. After all, the MBA classroom is a place
where pragmatism is valued. Even when students want to consider the ethical implications of a
managerial decision, they need to believe those implications are actionable in the real world and to feel
confident that they can express them as such.
In their explication of the mutual trust perspective on morality, Dees and Crampton describe how the
assumption of others’ unethical behavior can affect individuals. They posit a three part classification of
human behavior: opportunists, moral idealists, and pragmatists:
Most [people] are pragmatists, concerned with their own material welfare, but also with moral
ideals....Pragmatists are looking for reciprocal moral commitment. They behave like opportunists in
the state of nature, not because they are inherently egoistic, but because they cannot trust others to
constrain their opportunistic behavior. Pragmatists will gladly do their fair share to create a civil
society, but not place themselves at a systematic disadvantage (Dees & Crampton, 1991).
Consider students as such pragmatists for a moment. Similarly, they do not want to place themselves at a
systematic disadvantage by restricting their action plans with ethical considerations, if they believe that
their classmates and more importantly, real managers, would not do so.
This material is part of the Giving Voice to Values curriculum collection (www.GivingVoiceToValues.org).
The Aspen Institute was founding partner, along with the Yale School of Management, and incubator for Giving Voice to Values (GVV).
Now Funded by Babson College.
Do not alter or distribute without permission. © Mary C. Gentile, 2010
5
Classroom Example
A classroom discussion of trade loading at R. J. Reynolds illustrates this phenomenon. The case was
written specifically as an effort to integrate attention to ethical issues into the FRMA curriculum. In this
case, R.J. pads end-of-period cigarette shipments to distributors to increase reported income. Faculty
opened the discussion by analyzing the impact of trade loading over time on income, and by asking
whether there was a real problem (“Is this material?”) and who, if anyone, was hurt by this practice.
Casting the question in terms of materiality, to begin with, shifts responsibility for decisions away from
the manager and onto a set of external guidelines. In addition, the analysis that faculty and students
displayed at the start of the discussion illustrated that materiality depends upon the method of analysis
used. Therefore, managerial purpose is limited to compliance with external guidelines and the
accounting “truth” is once again shown to be a moving target.
As explained above, students’ drive for learning is therefore limited to a desire for mastery: how can a
manager make this situation work for them? Accordingly, attention shifts to the intentions and the tactics
of R. J. Reynolds managers. Faculty and students then focused the discussion on the individual character
of chief executive Ross Johnson. Faculty called attention to the KKR takeover of R. J. Reynolds and
then asked:
Faculty: “Would Ross Johnson have the obligation to tell KKR of problematic income projections
due to trade loading practices?”
Student: “Yes.”
Faculty: “Would he do so?”
Student: “No.”
Faculty: “So he should do the deal fast and blame the trade loading on the next guy? What kind of
guy is Ross Johnson? Would he misrepresent to KKR?”
Student: “Yes.”
After this exchange and others like it, despite faculty efforts to encourage students to examine the
deleterious effects of trade loading on the quality of the firm’s information, or to question the role and
responsibility of the auditor in this situation, or even to raise questions about the impact of trade loading
on distributors and customers, students remained focused on the motives and assumed character traits of
Ross Johnson. The tone of the discussion was cynical, as they built a sort of “conspiracy theory”
wherein the managers were consumed with the idea of “cashing out on the company” and “getting their
parachutes.” As one student put it: “Cash is king...This product [cigarettes] is a cash cow, but it’s a
declining industry — a declining industry with huge margins. They’re going to soak up as much as they
can.” When faculty asked if anything was wrong with the firm’s practices, another student replied,
presumably with an intention to shock: “No one is getting hurt....A manager here ought to consider
whether his job is long term or short term in deciding whether to try to make any change.”
This material is part of the Giving Voice to Values curriculum collection (www.GivingVoiceToValues.org).
The Aspen Institute was founding partner, along with the Yale School of Management, and incubator for Giving Voice to Values (GVV).
Now Funded by Babson College.
Do not alter or distribute without permission. © Mary C. Gentile, 2010
6
Finally, the faculty ended the class with a brief summary, drawing a comparison between “operating
manipulations” and “accounting manipulations,” commenting that; “1 don’t know if you consider
operating manipulations unethical, but think about it. You probably would think it was unethical if they
had played with the accounting.” And then a reprint of the Bruns/Merchant article, “The Dangerous
Morality of Managing Earnings,” (Management Accounting, August 1990, pp. 22-25) was distributed to
students, presenting survey results where managers report a high level of tolerance for just such
“operating manipulations.”
Reframing the Argument: Purpose
The above case discussion illustrates how faculty’s concern for intellectual integrity may be experienced
by students as a lack of concern for honesty. For example, the demonstration of the many ways in which
the cumulative impact of trade loading may be calculated can leave students with the conclusion that any
approach is equally appropriate, as long as they can justify their choices within the constraints of GAAP.
Similarly, any notion of managerial purpose is limited by a narrowly individualistic analysis of motives
and responsibilities. For example, the pragmatism and self-interest of Ross Johnson are explored in
much greater depth than the pragmatism and even self-interest of a manager defining his or her purpose
more broadly. Students are left with a quest for mere technical mastery in the service of individual
career goals, and the assumption of unethical behavior on the part of “the other manager” -- an
assumption that can lead to their own lack of ethics as a defensive maneuver.
Now the case discussion described above was not without its usefulness. Students were made aware of
the less obvious costs of operating manipulations like trade loading, and of how quickly they can
compound. They became aware of managerial incentives for such behavior and of the disincentives for
addressing the problem. Nevertheless, the net impact of this class may have been substantially different
from what was intended.
Given that some of the apparent barriers to serious, rigorous discussions of ethical issues in this field
appear to be built into the conflict between student needs/assumptions and faculty intentions, how can
these conversations be restructured so as to realign the goals of these two groups?
To begin with, faculty can reframe the debate. One lesson that has been illustrated time and time again is
that one cannot reverse the tone and thrust of an entire class period with a pious commentary at the close
of the hour, regardless of how sincere or articulate. Unless students feel the urgency of the ethical
imperative, just as they feel the urgency of the market’s imperatives and of their own career aspirations,
these comments will carry little impact. It becomes crucial, right from the start of the class period, to
position the managerial decisions under examinations within a context of broader business purpose and
managerial responsibility.
For example, the purposes of accounting tend to be discussed in only the most limited and often cynical
a fashion (e.g., student comments from students that accounting is really only about “making yourself
look good on paper.”) In one classroom, the faculty opened the semester with a brief reference to the
historical origins of double-entry bookkeeping. This opening session would be an ideal opportunity to
take the topic further, to address the roles that the accounting and financial reporting function have
played historically and the ones they currently play for the contemporary manager.
This material is part of the Giving Voice to Values curriculum collection (www.GivingVoiceToValues.org).
The Aspen Institute was founding partner, along with the Yale School of Management, and incubator for Giving Voice to Values (GVV).
Now Funded by Babson College.
Do not alter or distribute without permission. © Mary C. Gentile, 2010
7
Faculty might open the course with some questions like:
 What is the function of accounting and of financial reporting within the organization? Outside the
organization?
 Who are the stakeholders affected by managerial choices around accounting and financial reporting
practices?
 What purposes should drive the manager’s decisions around accounting and financial reporting
practices?
One of the first things that become apparent when individuals take the time to try to answer the above
questions is that accounting and financial reporting are merely tools or means to other ends. There
certainly are rules and guidelines for the legitimate use of these tools but as noted above, these rules are
open to differing interpretations and they can be circumvented if one’s motive is strong enough.
Learning how to do accounting does not teach one for what purpose to do accounting. Similarly, the
eleven concepts3 governing the practice of accounting and typically presented to students in the first
class sessions, rely upon the manager’s responsible exercise of judgment, and judgment requires a sense
of direction. Without a clear conception of the purpose for which one wants to use this powerful tool of
accounting, these concepts become meaningless as guidelines and function only as rationalizations or
excuses. An extreme example of this phenomenon is the student who attempts to justify fraudulent
activity by claiming it was not “material.”
So if accounting and financial reporting are only tools, albeit very powerful ones given the force of the
seeming objectivity of quantitative measures, how does one begin to answer the questions listed above?
What are some of the responses students may discuss, or that faculty may hope to elicit?
When asked, “What is the function of accounting and of financial reporting within the organization and
outside the organization?” student responses are likely to fall into four areas:
 Control function: monitoring activity in order to assure compliance with goals and standards;
 Communication function: internal and external reporting;
 Historical function: recording the financial history of the organization;
 Decision-Making function: creating opportunity/need for dialogue and relationship-building around
organizational goals and strategy.
The first three of these responses “beg the question” of purpose. They are based upon the assumption
that the managers already know their organizational purpose (i.e., how the reporting will help them
assure compliance with standards, or what messages their reporting will help them communicate to
which audiences). As noted, the existence of rules like GAAP help to give the illusion that these
“standards” and these “messages” are already given. It is really only the last of these functions –
decision-making – which positions accounting and financial reporting as tools to determine purpose, as
well as to serve it.
Students often tend to focus on the control and communication functions, but it is the discussion of the
decision-making function of accounting and financial reporting which makes their potential power and
3
The eleven concepts as presented in Robert N. Anthony and James S. Reece’s Accounting Principles (Homewood, Illinois:
R.D. Irwin, 1983) are money measurement, entity, going concern, cost, dual aspect, time period, conservatism, realization,
matching consistency, and materiality.
This material is part of the Giving Voice to Values curriculum collection (www.GivingVoiceToValues.org).
The Aspen Institute was founding partner, along with the Yale School of Management, and incubator for Giving Voice to Values (GVV).
Now Funded by Babson College.
Do not alter or distribute without permission. © Mary C. Gentile, 2010
8
their accountability as managers visible. Focus on the decision-making function of accounting reveals
that the collection, analysis and presentation of information reflect many prior choices: Who will collect
the data? What sources of data will be accepted? What reporting methods will be used? How and to
whom will data be presented? Who will make these decisions? Whose voices will be heard in the
decision-making process?
Viewing accounting and financial reporting as a dialogue and a relationship-building process precludes
the narrow application of rules and guidelines as mere rationalizations. Accounting becomes a reciprocal
discussion of ends, as well as means. Once this question of ends or purpose has been broached, students
may be asked “what purpose drives the manager’s decisions around accounting and financial reporting
practices?” Answers may include:
 To insure the firm’s financial survival;
 To stay within the law and regulations;
 To satisfy the financial market’s need for information and/or to convince the market of the firm’s
continuing profitability;
 To generate information for internal evaluation, planning and performance review purposes;
 To maximize reported short term performance;
 To maximize reported long term performance;
 To manage reported performance to the benefit of individual career goals or performance-based
compensation;
 To clearly disclose financial information to certain stakeholders;
 To manage information in a fashion to build and support the case for a desired outcome (i.e., desired
impact on share prices, reassurance of bankers and other creditors, argument for annual performance
goal setting and/or budget allocations).
Once such a list is generated, a number of observations become apparent. Many of these purposes
contradict each other. Commitment to some of these purposes varies depending upon the point of view
adopted: internal vs. external, lower vs. higher in the organization. And a fundamental conflict is
revealed between a view of accounting and financial reporting as a tool for managing appearances as
opposed to a tool for managing the substance of the firm’s activities.
Because, as noted earlier, students’ notion of “truth” is shaken by the complexity to which they are
exposed in the course and because they see that appearances can often drive substance, students often
retreat to the notion that appearances are all that one can control. However, by raising these conflicting
notions of purpose at the start of the course, faculty can suggest a preemptive perspective, one that
neither over-simplifies the notion of “truth” nor surrenders it altogether. That is, the very fact that the
purposes of accounting may contradict each other, depending upon one’s perspective and position,
suggests the importance of viewing it as a dialogue and a decision-making process that is and must be
continually questioning and remaking itself. This perspective underscores the role of openness and
shared responsibility.
Perhaps an analogy may be useful here. One might reflect upon the changing role of physicians in the
United States. Not too many years ago, the doctor was viewed as the revered and wise expert, with
access to specialized knowledge and breadth of experience that the patient could not expect to fathom.
The doctor’s opinion was sought and followed, often without undue questioning. Times are changing,
and individuals today often seek second opinions. They request and expect the doctor to share their
This material is part of the Giving Voice to Values curriculum collection (www.GivingVoiceToValues.org).
The Aspen Institute was founding partner, along with the Yale School of Management, and incubator for Giving Voice to Values (GVV).
Now Funded by Babson College.
Do not alter or distribute without permission. © Mary C. Gentile, 2010
9
information and experience, but to leave the final decision as to treatment up to the afflicted individual.
The very fact that there are more options available to treat illness, as well as the increased sophistication
of the consumer, has changed the way a responsible decision can be made. A careful and empathetic
treatment is no less the physician’s responsibility today than it was twenty or thirty years ago, but the
method for achieving that end has changed.
The goal or purpose of the physician’s interventions may be ambiguous: is it to maximize the length or
the quality of the patient’s life? And as the patient becomes more sophisticated, he or she expects to
determine that purpose. Nevertheless, the physician’s greater knowledge and insight allows a measure of
control -- and therefore responsibility -- over the determination of the treatment’s purpose. The
physician may respond to this principal/agent dilemma in a number of ways:
 Controlling the patient’s information so as to assure a certain outcome, thereby implicitly, if not
explicitly, assuming primary responsibility for the choice of treatment;
 Doing a “core dump” of information on the patient and leaving him or her to sort through it and
come up with a decision about treatment options, thereby attempting to transfer responsibility for
treatment choice onto the patient;
 Attempting to build an honest, reciprocal dialogue with the patient, sharing options, learning of the
patient’s priorities and fears, and sharing responsibility for the final decision.
Just as the last of these approaches most closely reflects the reality of the physician/patient relationship
(responsibility is shared whether the physician likes it or not), it also offers an analogy to the manager’s
responsibility toward the accounting and financial reporting function. Few managers would adopt the
second approach described above -- providing all data available to them to the firm’s various
stakeholders (bankers, shareholders, outside auditors, vendors, customers, etc.) -- for it represents a
complete abdication of power and control. Many, however, attempt to take the first approach described,
carefully monitoring and controlling the amount and form of information disseminated to each
constituent, especially if the manager views his/her purpose as narrowly defined (i.e., individual career
success, short-term profitability). The third option, however, may represent the most appropriate
meshing of the shared responsibility and rights of managers and stakeholders.
If this reciprocal dialogue between manager and stakeholder is accepted as an appropriate and more
realistic representation of the function of accounting and financial reporting, it becomes more possible
for students to seriously propose and consider longer term considerations and fuller disclosure as
reasonable decision-making criteria. The idea of establishing a constructive dialogue between manager
and outside auditor, or between the firm and market analysts, becomes a viable option for discussion.
For example, take a look at a classroom discussion of “First National Bank Corporation,” [See
Appendix] a case study about a New England bank’s effort to set the “right” Provision for Credit Loss in
a climate of failing real estate loans. Students were torn between their sense that the real number was a
good deal higher than the anticipated allowance, and their concern that reporting this figure would send
negative signals to regulatory bodies and the market. A few brave souls tried to suggest that discussion
with the auditing team, with the SEC, and with analysts might be the best way to address the conflict,
but their comments ran counter to the prevailing conviction that information is to be held closely and
that open communication leads inevitably to a loss of power, not a sharing of responsibility.
This material is part of the Giving Voice to Values curriculum collection (www.GivingVoiceToValues.org).
The Aspen Institute was founding partner, along with the Yale School of Management, and incubator for Giving Voice to Values (GVV).
Now Funded by Babson College.
Do not alter or distribute without permission. © Mary C. Gentile, 2010
10
At the close of the class, the instructor did share with students some data revealing the actual size of the
bad loan problem among New England banks at the time of the case – very large – and she noted that
many banks did indeed step up to the line to report their concern. As she put it, “this was not a routine
audit,” indicating that this was not the problem of an individual bank and that therefore the
consequences and the managerial options were broader than many students had realized. Nevertheless,
the prevalent mood of the class had been one that emphasized the “risk” of open communication more
heavily than the necessity.
If a context had been set from the beginning of the course in which accounting and financial reporting
were seen as tools for building reciprocal dialogue, students may have been freer to seriously entertain
an alternate vision of this case decision. Without this perspective, students are ultimately training
themselves to limit their creativity, to distort their inventiveness, applying it in an effort to manage
“appearances” in the service of a narrow definition of purpose.
The assumptions behind the reciprocal dialogue are useful within the firm as well. Rather than simply
assuming that each manager will use whatever means necessary to advance his/her individual career
potential (Dees and Crampton’s “opportunists”) at the expense of the firm and its other stakeholders, or
that each manager will sacrifice his/her own aspirations for the good of the whole (“moral idealists”),
this view of the accounting and reporting process assumes that most individuals are “pragmatists,” who
will behave in a morally desirable fashion if they believe that they are not being “suckers” by doing so.
Reciprocal dialogue means that managers can name the mixed messages they may be getting from a
corporate headquarters that says that, “We expect you to obey the rules, but remember that the most
important thing is to make goal.” The results of such a dialogue may be the redesign of the firm’s
incentive program, or the rethinking of the firm’s budgeting process.
In other words, viewing accounting and financial reporting as a decision-making function which creates
the opportunity/need for reciprocal dialogue and relationship building, makes it possible for students to
conceive of their purpose in broader terms. They can begin thinking of this activity as more than just
“window dressing” -- as one student termed it, and as serving ends more far reaching than their
individual careers.
Teaching Pitfalls
In addition to narrow assumptions concerning the purpose of accounting and financial reporting, there
are other common student assumptions that often undermine serious attempts at ethical discussion:
 Competitiveness:
For example, the definition of competitiveness as assumed by many students seems to follow the old
joke about two lawyers pursued by a bear in the woods. One lawyer says to the other, “We’ll never be
able to outrun that bear,” and the other replies, “1 don’t have to outrun that bear; I just have to outrun
you.”
Implicit in this view of competitiveness is the assumption that the point of business is conquest,
narrowly defined as outrunning the competitors. This model often results in the same kind of shortsighted, narrow conceptions of managerial purpose discussed above. For example, this line of thinking
This material is part of the Giving Voice to Values curriculum collection (www.GivingVoiceToValues.org).
The Aspen Institute was founding partner, along with the Yale School of Management, and incubator for Giving Voice to Values (GVV).
Now Funded by Babson College.
Do not alter or distribute without permission. © Mary C. Gentile, 2010
11
would argue that it is not necessarily important for R.J. Reynolds to deliver a quality product or to
maintain good relationships with distributors, if they can manipulate the process of trade loading to
record ever higher sales and revenues each quarter -- and thereby outperform their competitors.
It can be valuable to suggest an alternative model for competitiveness: that is, one based upon
sustainability and/or excellence rather than merely “outrunning” the competition. An example which
surfaced in an operations management discussion revolved around the issue of plant and process safety.
Some students pointed out that the best safety record in a particular industry might be 80% safety or
20% injury rate over a specific span of plant operation; therefore, their performance benchmark could be
80% safety. But a senior executive who was a guest speaker in the class asserted that his goal would be
100% safety, because otherwise management was making plant injuries acceptable and actually limiting
the imaginations of their workforce.
Naming that a more narrow definition of competitiveness prevents students from recognizing the
broader consequences of their actions and from exercising their full potential for creativity and
performance, is a useful corrective to this more “blindered” view. An instructor might ask: “If
performance goals are defined narrowly, how many managers will think broadly about impact and
innovation?” In the case of “R.J. Reynolds”, an instructor might ask: “What kinds of performance
measures and goals would encourage managers to think more broadly about the consequences of trade
loading?”
 False Dichotomies:
One of the most stubborn underlying assumptions in student rationalizations of ethically questionable
behavior is that their reasonable (and “pragmatic”) aversion to self-destructive behavior serves as a
justification for any behavior. For example, students will often cite an unforgiving market as the reason
for all sorts of distortions in reporting and operating manipulations. If the market does not tolerate the
trade-off of short term profits for long term gain in one instance, then this becomes an excuse to
abandon the attempt to forge open, honest communications in any instance. This kind of false dichotomy
-- between unquestioning moral idealism (e.g. total disclosure) and a suspension of any obligations at all
is often the subtext behind student justifications for unethical behavior. However, these false
dichotomies usually obscure a more complex reality (Martin, 1990).
For example, in the discussion of “First National Bank Corporation” mentioned earlier, some students
pointed out that if the bank reported too large a provision for credit loss, they would call themselves into
question by the bank regulators. Therefore, many students concluded that the “truth” just couldn’t be
told, and that was that. Somehow the potential shortage of assets and the impact upon all customers, as
well as the bank in the longer term, just disappeared. A false dichotomy had been established: “tell the
truth” and the bank is closed OR minimize the provision for credit loss and the bank survives. There was
no sense that this was an inadequate resolution of an admittedly difficult dilemma. But the instructor
was able to question this false resolution by naming the reality that was hidden by the false dichotomy:
she simply but repeatedly asked, “So you would limit the credit loss provision to the number which
would avoid scrutiny -- but what if it’s really worse than that?” This comment suggested a “reality”
beyond the reported numbers; it began to shake loose the rationalization that “we have no choice but to
distort our reporting.” It opened the door to further discussion of the consequences of this decision upon
a wider group of stakeholders over a longer time period.
This material is part of the Giving Voice to Values curriculum collection (www.GivingVoiceToValues.org).
The Aspen Institute was founding partner, along with the Yale School of Management, and incubator for Giving Voice to Values (GVV).
Now Funded by Babson College.
Do not alter or distribute without permission. © Mary C. Gentile, 2010
12
 Myth of Objectivity:
As mentioned earlier, quantitative data carries with it the aura of “objectivity” and the greater credibility
that this aura brings. Although faculty strive to make visible the ways in which “the numbers” represent
just as many subjective choices and interpretations as any qualitative argument, the numbers still do
have a way of settling an argument. And educators still give off a lot of mixed messages. For example,
when teaching the “R.J. Reynolds” case, the first ten or fifteen minutes of the class are spent laying out
the quantitative mechanics of trade loading, illustrating how it affects the bottom line and how quickly
its impact grows. There is a perfectly sound pedagogical reason for this strategy. Students have to
understand the phenomenon before they can intelligently evaluate it. However, this exercise is often
immediately followed by a discussion of materiality: is the effect of trade loading material or not?
Implicit in this discussion, which takes considerable class time, is the assumption that materiality is an
entirely objective question and that it alone is the key factor in determining the acceptability of this
practice. If the discussion of materiality were preceded by a discussion of the impacts of trade loading
on all stakeholders, the motives that drive it and the far and near term costs, materiality would be placed
in a very different context when it was raised.
 Disaggregation of Responsibility:
In a case discussion of control systems for managing plant costs (“Worldwide Motor Company:
Budgeting and Cost Control at the Chicago Engine Plant”) [See Appendix], one student suggested that
since his performance evaluation was based on cost variance, he would send his excess scrap to another
product center so its cost would be held against her budget rather than his. The next student replied that
although the prior student may not be concerned about the impact of costs upon her center or upon the
firm as a whole, his plant manager certainly would be. Putting aside for a moment the questionable
feasibility of such a scheme, it is useful to examine the underlying assumption of disaggregated
responsibility (Reidenbach & Robin, 1990).
Commonly, when case issues become excessively complex, students will quite reasonably attempt to
break the decision down into its component parts (Gambling, 1987). However, there is a tendency to
limit one’s focus of attention to those areas over which one has the most immediate control and by
which one’s career and compensation will be most directly affected. This is quite understandable: when
circumstances feel overwhelming, people strive to simplify, and often (unconsciously or consciously)
block out constituencies or factors which will not fit into their models.
Ethical discussions (because they frequently involve boundary spanning concerns and impact
stakeholders beyond the borders of the function, division, or firm) often trigger this retreat to ‘blindered”
thinking. Everyone retreats to managing just that piece of the world that they believe they can control. It
becomes the challenge for faculty to reveal the practical, as well as ethical, limitations of this approach
and to provide a motive and a process for moving beyond it. In the case described above, the practical
problems with the student’s proposal, as well as the costs to the firm, are fairly easy to uncover. What
may be more challenging and more motivating to this student, however, is to point out the flaws in his
general approach. By attempting to control the cost management/performance system, he is in fact
controlled by it. He has limited himself to a purely “reactive’ stance, as opposed to a “learning” stance.
So, for example, if the instructor attempted to raise this discussion of cost control systems to the level of
purpose once again (“Why was this system designed? What behaviors are managers trying to
encourage?”), students could look at the system as a tool for organizational learning and reciprocal
dialogue, as opposed to simply a tool for monitoring and compliance.
This material is part of the Giving Voice to Values curriculum collection (www.GivingVoiceToValues.org).
The Aspen Institute was founding partner, along with the Yale School of Management, and incubator for Giving Voice to Values (GVV).
Now Funded by Babson College.
Do not alter or distribute without permission. © Mary C. Gentile, 2010
13
 Cynical = Smart:
This assumption is often communicated through subtle signals of tone and humor. In a classroom
environment where practicality and effectiveness are prized, ethical questions are often presented as
constraints on action, a dreary list of “thou shalt not’s.” Thus it becomes important to counter these
subtle messages in a variety of ways.
First, as mentioned earlier, the assumption of unethical behavior can be countered by sharing examples
of effective managers who have made choices influenced by their sense of obligation and ethics. For
example, in the discussion of the “First National Bank Corporation” case, some faculty made a point of
sharing the fact that numerous banks in similar situations had, in fact, stepped up to the line and raised
their provisions for credit loss when they recognized that their loan portfolios were in trouble.
Second, students don’t have to “close their eyes” to the reality of “perverse incentives” that encourage
behaviors that benefit an individual in the short term but harm the firm in the long term. Instead they can
probe the motives for less than responsible managerial action in a particular case, but from the
perspective of one who is motivated to design systems that will correct for these incentives.
For example, if control systems are to be viewed as a tool for organizational learning and reciprocal
dialogue, managers require a willingness to adopt multiple perspectives. Take the case discussion of
product cost control systems mentioned above: from the firm’s perspective, the purpose of these systems
is to control actual production processes, but from the individual manager’s perspective the purpose may
feel as if it is merely to manage the information reported to his/her best advantage.
Students can use these insights to design a control system that sends the most realistic and effective mix
of signals. It becomes very important for instructors to take the discussion beyond the diagnosis of why
managers behave in a short-sighted and even unethical manner to the question of “how can this be
changed?” Asking this question allows the student to identify with a position of efficacy and action
again, rather than with a stance of sanctimonious inaction. Additionally, it allows students to experience
their recommendations of responsible and ethical management choices as deriving from savvy
intelligence and an understanding of how the “real world” works, rather than from naiveté.
Red Flags
In the previous section, certain prevalent assumptions that tend to inhibit inquiry around ethical issues
were identified, as well as some questions that can help to push past these barriers. What follows is a list
of “red flags,” behaviors that often trigger or announce the opportunity for unethical activity. By naming
these behaviors when they arise in discussions and using the same language to refer to them each time
they surface, faculty and students – and managers – can construct an explicit or implicit list of warning
signals, indicators that extra caution and reflection may be required. 4
4
This approach is based upon a teaching plan designed by Thomas Bonoma, former professor of Marketing at the Harvard
Business School.
This material is part of the Giving Voice to Values curriculum collection (www.GivingVoiceToValues.org).
The Aspen Institute was founding partner, along with the Yale School of Management, and incubator for Giving Voice to Values (GVV).
Now Funded by Babson College.
Do not alter or distribute without permission. © Mary C. Gentile, 2010
14
Some of the “red flags” most commonly found in accounting and financial reporting situations include:
 Addictive Cycles:
There are reporting manipulations that, once accepted, become difficult to abandon because they create
an ever escalating need to disguise the initial distortion. The trade loading in the “R.J. Reynolds” case is
an example of such a behavior. People who may never have chosen or agreed to such actions initially
may feel trapped into avoiding embarrassing consequences if the behavior is terminated.
 Management by Exception:
In the evaluation and discussion of management outcomes, there can be a tendency to limit oneself to
the data most accessible and to be influenced by the format in which it is presented. Discussions of cases
like “Worldwide Motor Company” can reveal the dangers of evaluating performance based solely upon
comparisons with and divergence from the past performance or the projections for current performance
(Cohen &Pant, 1988/89). Not only is the practice shortsighted from a competitive perspective, it
provides opportunities and incentives for distorted reporting. The incentive to manage cost variances at
any expense, cited above, is one example. The subtle encouragement to shift sales from one period to
another, chronicled in the “Heinz” case, [See Appendix] is another.
 Political Nature of Budgeting:
An awareness of the accounting and financial reporting processes as a reciprocal dialogue helps to make
more visible their political reality (Chua, 1986; Cohen & Pant, 1988/89). For example, the “First
National Bank Corporation” case provides an opportunity to understand the pressures upon the outside
auditors to please their client, as well as the pressures upon the internal controller to please the CFO. As
noted in the discussion of cynicism above, it is essential to take this realization the next steps and ask,
“What are the internal and external costs of ignoring this reality?” and “Given the political nature of this
process, what steps can manager take to encourage and reward open dialogue?”
 Short Term vs. Long Term:
An obvious “red flag” for responsible and effective managers is short term thinking. The problem is that
students will often note that there is little motivation to take the long view, if the immediate
consequences will be negative and the decision-makers may well be long gone before the positive
impact of their decision manifests itself.
There are several potential directions to take in response to this reasoning. One is to appeal to the
broader definition of purpose which, by now, has been established through initial discussion and
ongoing references as described above. A habit of looking at issues beyond individual career success is
being established.
The other response is to once again break the frame of the assumed status quo, and ask, “How can this
“perverse incentive” be changed? Are there rewards for effective long term management? Are there
ways to effectively communicate one’s reasoning and to enlist the intelligence and foresight of one’s
audiences?” In other words, examine the assumption that long-term management is not rewarded and
that short-term management is not punished. Is this always true? Are there ways to break free of this
constraint?
This material is part of the Giving Voice to Values curriculum collection (www.GivingVoiceToValues.org).
The Aspen Institute was founding partner, along with the Yale School of Management, and incubator for Giving Voice to Values (GVV).
Now Funded by Babson College.
Do not alter or distribute without permission. © Mary C. Gentile, 2010
15
Conclusion
The fundamental challenge for faculty of financial reporting and managerial accounting is to
communicate the degree to which accounting truth is constructed, without undermining the student’s
sense of responsibility for their role in that process. The challenge is to engender a constructive selfawareness rather than a destructive cynicism, a collective sense of responsibility rather than an
individual retreat to manipulation.
Hundreds of hours of classroom observation have revealed a number of tactics that appear to satisfy this
goal. Many of them have been discussed above and can be summarized as follows:
1.) Explicitly discuss and name the PURPOSE toward which the responsible and effective manager will
apply the tools being taught. This discussion can occur at the broadest level at the start of the course,
establishing a framework and a vocabulary (i.e.,”reciprocal dialogue”) which can be echoed throughout
the course.
2.) Explicitly name and QUESTION THE ASSUMPTIONS that underlie the most frequently heard
rationalizations for ethically questionable behavior (i.e., disaggregated responsibility, false dichotomies).
Asking students to name and prioritize the criteria they used to draw a certain conclusion, or to unpack
the decision criteria embedded in a variety of student-generated plans-of-action can help to get at these
assumptions.
3.) Develop a working list of RED FLAGS or dangerous situations where unethical behavior may be
most likely to surface.5 These situations or conditions can be noted, and followed with questions like:
“Can this situation be avoided?” or “How can these conditions be changed?” or “What would it take for
someone to make the ‘right’ decision under these conditions?” It is important to take students past the
diagnosis to potential treatments, in an effort to leave them with a sense of empowerment rather than
fatalism.
4.) Share POSITIVE MODELS of managerial decision-making, both in cases and in classroom
summaries.
5.) Rather than focusing teaching plans around the question “to lie or not to lie” (with all the endless
variations: “to smooth or not to smooth,” “to disclose or not to disclose,” etc.), the emphasis might be
better placed upon examining complex managerial motivations and developing implementation plans to
foster incentives for effective and responsible decision-making.
One of the most compelling observations taken from student discussions of ethical issues in the financial
reporting and accounting field is the recognition that many students want to find ways to behave
responsibly and ethically. They look to the class discussion and to the faculty member to be honest with
them and to avoid facile sermonettes, but they also hope to find intelligent and savvy ways to begin to
look beyond the past rationalizations for unethical behavior with which they are already only too
familiar. Anticipating and recognizing the familiar forms that these rationalizations take is the best first
step to deconstructing them.
5
“Appendix H: Good Practice Guidelines For Assessing the Rash of Fraudulent Financial Reporting” of the Report of the
National Commission on Fraudulent Reporting (Exposure Draft, April 1987), includes a thorough list of factors in the
internal and external environment of a firm which place it at risk for fraudulent financial reporting.
This material is part of the Giving Voice to Values curriculum collection (www.GivingVoiceToValues.org).
The Aspen Institute was founding partner, along with the Yale School of Management, and incubator for Giving Voice to Values (GVV).
Now Funded by Babson College.
Do not alter or distribute without permission. © Mary C. Gentile, 2010
16
Appendix
First National Bank Corporation (A), #9-192-042 Barth ME, Nichols CA
First National Corporation, a major regional bank in the Northeast, must decide how large a provision
for credit losses to accrue in its 1990 financial statements. The recession in New England has caused
serious problems in its loan portfolio. Teaching Objective: Introduce concepts of allowance and
provision for bad debts; present manager/independent auditor relationship; raise ethical issues about
accounting judgments without clear answers and with important social effects.
First National Bank Corporation (B), #9-192-043
Barth ME, Nichols CA
Describes recent proposals to change bank credit loss accounting rules.
Harnischfeger Corporation, #9-186-160 Palepu KG
Presents an analysis of Harnischfeger’s quality of earnings, and the investment potential of the
company’s stock in light of the company’s turnaround strategy.
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, #9-191-038 Bruns WJ Jr, Nichols CA
Following the company’s purchase as a part of a leveraged buy-out, the new management team of R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co. had to decide what to do about the build-up of excess inventory of its
independent wholesale customers. The case introduces students to the problems that changing inventory
levels can create in interpreting financial results. Also raises ethical issues about the effect of such
practices on company management, investors, wholesalers, and ultimately customers.
Scovill, Inc.: Nutone Housing Group, 19-186-136 Merchant KA, Ferreira L
Describes a conflict between the corporate controller and a division president about labor standards
which the division purposefully overstates so as to protect its margins. Illustrates the multiple roles of
standards, and the roles of controllers and line management in resolving such conflicts.
Worldwide Motor Co.: Budgeting and Cost Control at the Chicago Engine
Plant, #9-190—069 Dearden J
Describes the budgeting and cost control system that is used by an engine
plant of a major automobile company.
H.J. Heinz Co.: The Administration of Policy (A), #9-382-034 Goodpaster KE, Post RJ
Relates the April 1979 discovery of improper income transferal practices used at the H.J. Heinz Co.
Background data on the company is presented, along with a detailed description of the organizational
practices, the management incentive system, and the corporate ethical policy then in use. Also contains
an organization chart and financial data for the 1972-78 fiscal years.
H.J. Heinz Co.: The Administration of Policy (B), #9-382-035 Goodpaster KE, Post RJ
Summarizes the investigation conducted by outside legal and accounting firms under the Heinz audit
committee. Improper practices were found at three of the five Heinz domestic divisions and at a number
of foreign operations. Presents restated financial data for the period, filed by Heinz with the SEC.
Summarizes the committee’s assessment of contributing factors and its conclusions.
This material is part of the Giving Voice to Values curriculum collection (www.GivingVoiceToValues.org).
The Aspen Institute was founding partner, along with the Yale School of Management, and incubator for Giving Voice to Values (GVV).
Now Funded by Babson College.
Do not alter or distribute without permission. © Mary C. Gentile, 2010
17
H.J. Heinz Co.: The Administration of Policy (C), #9-382-036 Goodpaster KE, Post RJ
Presents a condensation of the audit committee’s recommendations for organizational and policy
changes to help prevent a recurrence of improper income transferal practices used at the H.J. Heinz Co.
The Supplement, H.J. Heinz Co., The Administration of Policy (D), presents a brief discussion of
disciplinary action taken by Heinz with respect to personnel involved in improper income transferal
practices.
Source: Harvard Business School 1991-92 Catalog of Teaching Materials.
This material is part of the Giving Voice to Values curriculum collection (www.GivingVoiceToValues.org).
The Aspen Institute was founding partner, along with the Yale School of Management, and incubator for Giving Voice to Values (GVV).
Now Funded by Babson College.
Do not alter or distribute without permission. © Mary C. Gentile, 2010
18
References
Belkaoui, Ahmed (1989). The Coming Crisis in Accounting (p.63). New York:
Quorum Books.
Chua, Wai Fong ‘(1986). Radical Developments in Accounting Thought. The Accounting Review, LXI.4,
617.
Cohen, Jeffrey R. & Pant, Laurie W. (1988/89). The Only Thing that Counts is That Which is Counted:
A Discussion of Behavioral and Ethical Issues in Cost Accounting that are Relevant for the OB
Professor.
OBTR, XIII.3, 100-102.
Dees, J. Gregory & Crampton, Peter C. (1991). Shrewd Bargaining on the Moral Frontier: Toward a
Theory of Morality in Practice. Business Ethics Quarterly, 1.2, 146.
Gambling, Trevor (1987). Accounting for Rituals. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 12.4, 323.
Martin, Joanne (1990). Re-Reading Weber:
Searching for Feminist Alternatives to Bureaucracy.
Presented as part of the Ruffin Lectures in Business Ethics, The Darden School, University of Virginia
(p. 4).
Morgan, Gareth (1988). Accounting as Reality Construction: Towards a New Epistemology for
Accounting Practice. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 13.5, 477.
Reidenbach, R. Eric, & Robin, Donald P. (1990). Epistemological Structures in Marketing: Paradigms,
Metaphors, and Marketing Ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 1.2, 193.
Tyson, Thomas (1990). Believing That Everyone Else is Less Ethical:
Implications for Work Behavior and Ethics Instruction. Journal of
Business Ethics, 9.9, 715-716.
This material is part of the Giving Voice to Values curriculum collection (www.GivingVoiceToValues.org).
The Aspen Institute was founding partner, along with the Yale School of Management, and incubator for Giving Voice to Values (GVV).
Now Funded by Babson College.
Do not alter or distribute without permission. © Mary C. Gentile, 2010
19
Bibliography
Anderson, Margaret L. (1987). Changing the Curriculum in Higher Education. SIGNS, 12.2, 222254.
Arlow, Peter (1991). Personal Characteristics in College Students’ Evaluations of Business
Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 10.1, 63-69.
Ethics and
Belkaoui, Ahmed (1989). The Coming Crisis in Accounting. New York: Quorum Books.
Birnberg, Jacob G., Turopolec, Lawrence & Young, S. Mark (1983). The Organizational Context
Accounting. Accounting, Organizations, and Society, 8.2/3, 111-129.
of
Bruns, William J. and Merchant, Kenneth A. (1990). The Dangerous Morality of Managing Earnings.
Management Accounting, August, 22-25.
Chua, Wai Fong (1986). Radical Developments in Accounting Thought. The Accounting Review,
LXI.4, 601-632.
Claypool, G.A., Fetyko, D.F., & Pearson, M.A. (1990). Reactions to Ethical Dilemmas: A Study
Pertaining to Certified Public Accountants. Journal of Business Ethics, 9.9, 699-706.
Cohen, Jeffrey R., & Pant, Laurie W. (1989). Accounting Educators’ Perceptions of Ethics in the
Curriculum. Issues in Accounting Education, 4.1, 70-81.
_____ (1988/89). The Only Thing That Counts is That Which is Counted:
A Discussion of Behavioral and Ethical Issues in Cost Accounting that
are Relevant for the OB Professor. OBTR, XIII, 3, 97-111.
Cottell, Philip G., & Perlin, Terry M. (1990). Accounting Ethics. New
York: Quorum Books.
Covaleski, Mark, & Aiken, Michael (1986). Accounting and Theories of
Organizations: Some Preliminary Considerations. Accounting, Organizations, and Society, 11.4/5,
297-319.
Davis, James R (1989). Ambiguity, Ethics, and the Bottom Line. Indiana University School of
Business - Business Horizons, 32.3, 65-70.
Davis, James R., & Welton, Ralph E. (1991). Professional Ethics:
Business Students’ Perceptions. Journal of Business Ethics, 10.6,451—463.
Dees, Gregory J., & Crampton, Peter C. (1991). Shrewd Bargaining on the Moral Frontier: Toward a
Theory of Morality in Practice. Business Ethics Quarterly, 1.2, 135-168.
This material is part of the Giving Voice to Values curriculum collection (www.GivingVoiceToValues.org).
The Aspen Institute was founding partner, along with the Yale School of Management, and incubator for Giving Voice to Values (GVV).
Now Funded by Babson College.
Do not alter or distribute without permission. © Mary C. Gentile, 2010
20
Ethics in the Accounting Profession - May 7, 1986. Proceedings of a conference sponsored by the
University of Southern California and the California Society of Certified Public Accountants.
Furman, Frida Kerner (1990). Teaching Business Ethics: Questioning the Assumptions, Seeking
New Directions. Journal of Business Ethics, 9.1,31-38.
Gambling, Trevor (1987). Accounting for Rituals. Accounting, Organizations, and Society, 12.4,
319-329.
Johnson, Thomas H. (1986). Accounting, Organizations, and Rules: Toward a Sociology of Price - A
Comment on Zald. Accounting, Organizations, and Society, 11.4/5, 341-343.
Jones, Thomas M. (1988/89). Ethics Education in Business: Theoretical Considerations.
Organizational Behavior Teaching Review, XIII.4, 1-18.
Kirk, Donald J. (1985). The Impact of Management Accounting on GAAP. Management
Accounting, July, 26-31.
Kraft, Kenneth L. (1991). The Relative Importance of Social Responsibility in Determining
Organizational Effectiveness: Student Responses. Journal of Business Ethics, 10.3, 179-188.
Langenderfer, Harold Q., & Rockness, Joanne W. (1989). Integrating Ethics into the Accounting
Curriculum: Issues, Problems, and Solutions. Issues in Accounting Education, 4.1, 58-69.
Loeb, Stephen E. (1991). The Evaluation of “Outcomes” of Accounting Ethics Education. Journal of
Business Ethics, 10.2, 77-84.
_____ (1988). Teaching Students Accounting Ethics: Some Crucial Issues. Issues in Accounting
Education, 3, 316-329.
Lysonski, Steven and William Gaidis (1991). A Cross-Cultural Comparison of the Ethics of Business
Students. Journal of Business Ethics, 10.2,141—150.
Martin, Joanne (1990). “Re-reading Weber: Searching for Feminist Alternatives to
Bureaucracy.” Presented as part of the Ruffin Lectures in Business Ethics, Olsson Center for
Applied Ethics, The Darden School, University of Virginia.
Morgan, Gareth (1988). Accounting as Reality Construction: Towards a New Epistemology for
Accounting Practice. Accounting, Organizations, and Society, 13.5, 477-485.
Morgan, Robert G., Soroosh, Jalaleddin, & Woelfel, Charles J. (1985). Are Ethics Dangerous to
Your Job? Management Accounting, February, 25-32.
Reidenbach, Eric R., & Robin, Donald P. (1991). Epistemological Structures in Marketing: Paradigms,
Metaphors, and Marketing Ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 1.2, 185-199.
This material is part of the Giving Voice to Values curriculum collection (www.GivingVoiceToValues.org).
The Aspen Institute was founding partner, along with the Yale School of Management, and incubator for Giving Voice to Values (GVV).
Now Funded by Babson College.
Do not alter or distribute without permission. © Mary C. Gentile, 2010
21
Report of the National Commission on Fraudulent Reporting (Exposure Draft, April 1987).
Schoenfeldt, Lyle F., McDonald, Don, & Youngblood, Stuart A. (1991). The Teaching of Business
Ethics: A Survey of AACSB Member Schools. Journal of Business Ethics, 10.3, 237-241.
Schwartz, Robert H., Kassem, Sami, & Ludwig, Dean (1991). The Role of Business Schools in
Managing the Incongruence Between Doing What is Right and Doing What it Takes to Get Ahead.
Journal of Business Ethics, 10.6, 465-468.
Scribner, Edmund, & Dillaway, Manson P. (1989). Strengthening the Ethics Content of
Accounting Courses. Journal of Accounting Education, 7.1, 41-56.
Shepard, Jon M., & Hartenian, Linda S. (1991). Egoistic and Ethical Orientations of University
Students Toward Work - Related Decisions. Journal of Business Ethics, 10.4, 303-310.
Simons, Robert (1990). “Beliefs and Boundaries.” Presented at Strategic Management Society
Annual Meeting, Stockholm.
Sims, Ronald R., & Sims, Serbrenia J. (1991). Increasing Applied Business Ethics Courses in
Business School Curricula. Journal of Business Ethics, 10.3, 211-220.
Stewart, I.C. (1986). Ethics and Financial Reporting in the United States. Journal of Business
Ethics, 5.5, 401-408.
Swanda, John R., Jr. (1990). Goodwill, Going Concern, Stocks and Flows: A Prescription for
Moral Analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 9.9, 751-760.
Tyson, Thomas (1990). Believing that Everyone Else is Less Ethical: Implications for Work Behavior
and Ethics Instruction. Journal of Business Ethics, 9.9, 715-716.
Last Revised: 02/28/2010
This material is part of the Giving Voice to Values curriculum collection (www.GivingVoiceToValues.org).
The Aspen Institute was founding partner, along with the Yale School of Management, and incubator for Giving Voice to Values (GVV).
Now Funded by Babson College.
Do not alter or distribute without permission. © Mary C. Gentile, 2010
22